From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rolle v. Garcia

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Feb 28, 2007
9:04-CV-0312 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2007)

Summary

dismissing a prisoner's § 1983 claim based on alleged violation of the thirteenth amendment where "[the plaintiff] . . . offered no allegation that . . . [d]efendant in any way caused [p]laintiff to work on the road crew"

Summary of this case from Rivera v. Carroll

Opinion

9:04-CV-0312 (LEK/GHL).

February 28, 2007


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 29, 2007, by the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 47).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation. After examining the Record, and the Report-Recommendation, this Court adopts Sections I, II and III.G of said Report-Recommendation, having found them not to be subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

The learned Magistrate Judge extensively evaluated several grounds for the granting of Defendant's Motion and dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, however for the purposes of this Order, the Court finds that Section III.G of the Report-Recommendation — which finds Defendant to be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity — sufficiently disposes of the issues in this case such that the Court looks no further.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Sections I, II and III.G of the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 47) are APPROVED and ADOPTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 43) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rolle v. Garcia

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Feb 28, 2007
9:04-CV-0312 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2007)

dismissing a prisoner's § 1983 claim based on alleged violation of the thirteenth amendment where "[the plaintiff] . . . offered no allegation that . . . [d]efendant in any way caused [p]laintiff to work on the road crew"

Summary of this case from Rivera v. Carroll
Case details for

Rolle v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:NEHEMIAH D. ROLLE, Plaintiff, v. PAUL GARCIA, Individually and in Official…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Feb 28, 2007

Citations

9:04-CV-0312 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2007)

Citing Cases

Zimmerman v. Burge

See, e.g., Carlisle v. Goord, 03-CV-0296, 2007 WL 2769566, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2007) (Scullin, J.,…

Speights v. Winslow-Stanley

To the extent that Speights is alleging that he was not "duly" found guilty of the disciplinary charge, that…